Gay marriage : who cares?

[Charlemagne_II]

ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

 

[Adam1986]

Thank you Adam for posting this.

I fail to understand how other decide this for you. I also have no idea, but I just take the word of people who do. The entire concept of others telling you this info is frankly baffling.

Again, thank you posting your experience.

You’re welcome.

 

[Adam1986]

#1. Are you a woman? **Nope. I am not, but without going into too much detail, the anal sphincter is pretty much identical in men and women. **
#2. I am 5/3" & weighed 103 lbs. when I married. I am a small person. There are plenty of gay men who are small as well.
#3. I’m Catholic & my Church teaches chastity within marriage. I’m Catholic too.
#4. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse.[8] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, & may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues. It can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse. It is also due to the high concentration of disease-causing organisms in the anus and the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself, exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases. Some authorities judge that all anal sex is unsafe, due to the high rates of condom failure, including those brands that claim to be specially strengthened.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks
**Yes there are risks for tearing and bleeding during anal sex. There are also risks of tearing and bleeding during vaginal sex. Both are dependent on amount of lubrication, etc.

However anal prolapse is not a risk for regular anal sex no matter how often it is done. It’s when you get into the extreme S&M practice of fisting that there becomes a risk of prolapse. As far as incontinence; that doesn’t happen even with people who practice fisting. Now of course there could be an exception to that; if someone were to basically torture their internal organs. Other then that though, no.

Also it should be noted, that there is not a high rate of condom failure. It of course happens, but that’s very rare.**

#4. Why would a man who loves me, who chose me to be the Mother of his children, who took vows to love, to honor, to cherish me… ask me to do something that would cause me great pain, degradation at the filth inherent in such an act & expose me to disease?
**I said nothing about you yourself having anal sex or your husband wanting it. I just corrected you on something that you were wrong on.

I will also say that if you were to have anal sex, you would not be exposed to any disease from the sex act itself. He would be though, (UTI) if a condom was not used.**

I know that you answered my post in a kind way & I appreciate that. However, my husband & myself have found each other sexually attractive without the need for perversion for 51 yrs. & still do. So thanks, but no thanks.

Congratulations on the 51 yrs. That is wonderful.

 

[Adam1986]

He answered your specific assertion. No more, no less. How are you getting so confused?

Its as if you said “Cheesecake tastes awful. Never had it, but its awful.” Then someone comes in and says “I have had cheesecake, it tastes good”. You then jump back and counter with “Its fattening, bad for your heart, hurts digestion and raises your cholesterol”. Guess what? HE DIDNT SAY IT WAS HEALTHY, AND YOU DIDN’T REFUTE THAT CHEESECAKE IS GOOD!

Its like you drift into different conversations. Adam was very, very specific and carefully refuted your account. You don’t have one single point to raise, so you bring in others as if they were part of his post. Maybe your points are spot on. But, its NOT WHAT HE SAID. He disagrees with you, and you don’t have the guts to just let it go. You know he is right. It is HIS OPINION. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove him wrong.

Its just so frustrating to see your convictions again gays/gay sex/whatever completely whitewash your comprehension. Its not just you. Seems like a common occurrence. If someone makes one logical point that can’t be refuted, people jump in with ancillary points and just blast away.

This.

 

[PassingThru]

PassingThru, your needless attack on CradleCath is illogical, relativistic and just plain gutless. A woman who is 71 years old and of strong moral character explains what a wonderful relationship she has with her husband and you crucify her for her honesty, her moral strength and her intellectual courage in posting here.

Not what I saw at all.

Adam posted one specific point, on which he is 100% correct. Cradle said NOTHING relevant to that one, singular point. She just blasted out 4 or 5 unrelated points to diminish or distract from Adams correction. Note: I didnt say her points are right or wrong. I said they are unrelated.

I did NOT crucify her for honesty, moral strength or intellectual courage. My entire post was on her ignoring Adams point, and undermining him. Period. I said nothing of her age, faith, husband, nothing.

She specifically acknowledged that Adam1986 had answered her question and she was even gracious enough to thank him. Then she restated her own opinion. Obviously her opinion is not negotiable. But you, in a fit of pique, come along and deride her for giving it, despite her grace. That makes you a bully. And a crude one at that.

Again, close. She made a list of points, to include insinuating he was not Catholic, his sex disqualified his opinion and suggested he was degraded. Ending it with a “Thank You” does not change this.

Her opinion is fine, she can dislike it all she wants. Its making uninformed blanket statements that opens you up for criticism. For example, its dumb to tell others what is pleasurable or painful. Notice how Adam did NO SUCH THING? He said what his experience is, and what many others feel. There is a difference. Not my fault you and Cradle dont understand.

Y

our cheesecake analogy is pathetic. There are many things in life we do not have to try in order to know that it is wrong, or dangerous, or, in this case, disordered and unnatural. If other people stuck their head in a gas oven, would you do it? Would you do something just because someone else has done it, or would you exercise some restraint with regard to your own personal safety? If some people get a kick out of jumping off rooves, would you do it? They might tell you it’s a proof of bravery, or of manhood. Would you be so stupid as to do it? I doubt, after reading this response to CradleCath, ou’d have the guts.

This shows you kind of fail Analogy 101. Of course its silly to use Cheesecake, but you missed the point. Again, you are concentrating on right/wrong. ADAM DID NOT SAY IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG! What are you even reading? She said “Anal sex is painful for everyone”, Adam says “No, it can be pain free if done right” She responds with health concerns and Catholic morals. See where the disconnect is? That is what my analogy references. We made no claim about health/morals/safety. Please, read again.

As CradleCath has pointed out, sodomy is highly dangerous and even the homosexual lobby recognises that. God knows, they keep telling one another to be careful. Worse, every gay site you dare look at has whole sections of how to go about anal penetration without causing pain. Use lots of lube, they all say. Well, I do beleive there must be some weird psychological need to inflict such painful, unnnatural and disordered use of the human body. After all, a sphincter muscle that is designed to keep waste from spilling from the body and foreign matter from penetrating the intestinal tract, must be stretched and abused for what some call pleasure, or even love. How sick.

This is your issue, no one elses. Why are you looking at gay sites?

As for Cradle Cath not being able to prove Adam wrong, well I’m sorry to tell you, but the Internet is awash with the things that go wrong because of anal sex. You haven’t the guts to acknowledge it.

Swing and a miss. Go find one time where I made any assertion about the safety of anal sex. Again, you are in la-la land making up things I have said. Not one word have I mentioned that it is safe, or safer, than anything. In fact I have confirmed it is likely the most risky form. Try again.

What I said Cradle can not prove is her assertion (and others) that anal sex can only cause pain. She can not tell Adam it is painful, just as Adam can not tell Cradle it is pain free. NEITHER KNOWS THIS, but luckily Adam made no such silly assertion. You have made them, Cradle has. This is the point.

I think you owe CradleCath an apology.

Keep wishing.

 

[Seeker2010]

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment.

You should be careful making declarations about things with which you clearly have no knowledge or experience. Anal sex, done properly, is not painful, quite the opposite it can be quite pleasurable. Just because you think about it and decide it’s gross and painful doesn’t make it so.

“Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course.

Actually, most doms that I know are female and while their subs are both sexes, in my experience males are more frequently on the receiving end of BDSM encounters than females. My experience is anecdotal, to be sure, but it’s not just an excuse for a man to beat a woman. It’s a mutual exchange of power. Once again, you speak of things you don’t understand as though you were the worlds foremost expert.

You’re not.

You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men.

And you are are on a tyrannical bent determined to force other people to live their lives according to your religious beliefs. That once worked in this country. It no longer does, and I very seriously doubt it ever will again. I will certainly not live here voluntarily live here if it does, and if necessary will put my life on the line to prevent it. Theocracy has no place in a land of free persons.

 

[Seeker2010]

What’s true for Rhode Island is true for the rest of the U.S.

So you think your religious rules should be made law in a secular society? Or you don’t want a secular society?

 

[cascherman]

So, I’m getting a vibe from some of you that you believe in relative truth. “Gay” is wrong for you personally but not for others so let them have their fun and do what they want…

Please tell me I am wrong and everyone here who believes homosexual acts are wrong believes they are wrong whether you do it or your neighbor…

please…

 

[Seeker2010]

Well well well, the swinger is back. What happened Seeker, run out of parties?

Been out of town, my brothers wedding was Saturday. Did go to a killer party on Friday, though, and got a much bigger one coming up on the 20th. Expect about 1,000 people, if you want an invite, let me know. I’m not shooting this event (one of my businesses is photography), but I am doing the next one.

Come back to lavish upon us more of your moral vaccuity?

My only desire is to prevent you folks from forcing your rules down our throats. If I manage to convince someone that following rules given to us by sheepherders from 2,000 years ago is silly that’s just a bonus.

You are obviously not well read in the history of sodomy and homosexuality. Go take a little while to research the ancient Roman edicts against Homosexuality.

I couldn’t care less about the ancient Roman edicts on the subject. Just as I couldn’t care less that ancient Roman allowed gladiator battles to the death. Their world and ours have no similarities.

Way back before that period, the old germanic kingdoms frowned on same sex activities and fried the culprits at the stake.

So what? Back in the day, they burned ‘witches’ at the stake in Salem. Just today a Christian was sentenced to death for blasphemy against mohammad in an islamic country. (Pakistan I think, but am not sure.)

Just because things once were doesn’t mean they still should be. Just because things are now, doesn’t mean they should continue.

Oh, by the way, I even gave Larkin some historical information. Don’t tell me a person of your moral pursuasion hasn’t even read that.

As I said, I’ve been away. Did read a post or three here or there, but no doubt have missed many more than I saw, so I know not of what you speak.

Frowned upon down through the ages, Seeker, and now embraced by the morally bankrupt, which probably means nothing much has changed.

A womans bare ankle was frowned upon through the ages, too, and is now embraced by, well, everyone. Guess moral bankruptcy is relative huh?

 

[Seeker2010]

Why would a man who loves me, who chose me to be the Mother of his children, who took vows to love, to honor, to cherish me… ask me to do something that would cause me great pain, degradation at the filth inherent in such an act & expose me to disease?

First, apparently you missed the post where someone who is personally experienced with anal sex said it’s not painful, and with the voice of experience.

Second, that you consider it degrading doesn’t mean others do. Given your age and religious convictions, my guess is you consider wearing thong underwear degrading. It’s not.

Third, presuming your husband is faithful and STD free, protected anal sex exposes neither of you to risk of disease, and unprotected anal sex only exposes him to the risk of a bladder infection, but exposes you to the risk of nothing.

You think you know what you’re talking about, but the reality is you don’t.

 

[cascherman]

Question that I have been seeking an answer to.

First off, I am opposed to homosexual acts, not the PEOPLE who claim to be homosexual (as there is no such thing as a “homosexual” truly, only homosexual tendencies since all of us were given procreative attributes).

I am curious to hear a “gay” or “homosexual” person’s response to this:

Many people say there is no proof in natural law that homosexuality is “wrong”, but what do you make of the biological match that male physiology and female physiology make and the lack there of when attempting homosexual acts?

A better way to ask this is how can you claim it is right when in order to fulfill a homosexual sexual act you need to use a body part designed to excrete feces or you need to use some sort of man-made object?

Seems to me natural law is fairly clear there.

 

[cascherman]

First, apparently you missed the post where someone who is personally experienced with anal sex said it’s not painful, and with the voice of experience.

Second, that you consider it degrading doesn’t mean others do. Given your age and religious convictions, my guess is you consider wearing thong underwear degrading. It’s not.

Third, presuming your husband is faithful and STD free, protected anal sex exposes neither of you to risk of disease, and unprotected anal sex only exposes him to the risk of a bladder infection, but exposes you to the risk of nothing.

You think you know what you’re talking about, but the reality is you don’t.

So your arguing it is natural? Getting fecal matter shoved up your urethra is not enough of a hint that this may be a bad idea?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*And you are are on a tyrannical bent determined to force other people to live their lives according to your religious beliefs. That once worked in this country. It no longer does, and I very seriously doubt it ever will again. I will certainly not live here voluntarily live here if it does, and if necessary will put my life on the line to prevent it. Theocracy has no place in a land of free persons. *

Berlin was the homosexual capital of the world in the 1920s. Hardly a theocracy. Then along came Hitler, hardly a theocrat. Then hundred of thousands of homosexual men an women were starved and cremated in the death camps of Germany … not by the Catholic Church, but by the atheist Nazis. Don’t think you are safe because you live in a secular society.

Homosexuality has been despised and regarded as shameful by every civilization since the dawn of human history. That should give you pause to wonder. But I doubt that it will. You haven’t got the common sense you were born with. Don’t delude yourself that at last homosexuals have found a welcome home in the good old U.S.A. When push comes to shove, there are too many heterosexuals to shove back. That is the case everywhere in the world.

It’s human nature, and the good in human nature sooner or later always triumphs over the evil, as Christ has triumphed over Satan.

*First, apparently you missed the post where someone who is personally experienced with anal sex said it’s not painful, and with the voice of experience. *

I have a bridge to sell you. Are you interested?

 

[Seeker2010]

So your arguing it is natural? Getting fecal matter shoved up your urethra is not enough of a hint that this may be a bad idea?

I agree, unprotected anal sex is a bad idea. Wrap that puppy up and enjoy, if you’re so inclined. If not, so be it.

The problem is you think your lack of desire to do so should override others desire to.

Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane can result in death, even if you’ve taken every prudent step to avoid it. That doesn’t make skydiving immoral, or ‘unnatural’. Or maybe you think it is. After all, if man were meant to fly, god would’ve given us wings.

 

[cascherman]

I agree, unprotected anal sex is a bad idea. Wrap that puppy up and enjoy, if you’re so inclined. If not, so be it.

So, again, we are talking about natural here. You were not given the facilities to have homosexual sex naturally without risking a bladder infection unless you install some sort of manufactured covering, right?

So do you continue to maintain that homosexual acts do not violate natural law?

The problem is you think your lack of desire to do so should override others desire to.

This has nothing to do with desire, albeit I do not desire homosexual sex, but I also do not desire mooshoo pork but that does not cause me to call Chinese food immoral.

Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane can result in death, even if you’ve taken every prudent step to avoid it. That doesn’t make skydiving immoral, or ‘unnatural’. Or maybe you think it is. After all, if man were meant to fly, god would’ve given us wings.

It is unnatural to fly, but there has been no sociological study or research indicating that skydiving causes any long lasting mental and emotional damage. If there were, I may be telling you that skydiving is immoral.

 

[Seeker2010]

Don’t think you are safe because you live in a secular society.

Well, I’m not a homosexual, so if our society decides to start executing them I’m probably not a risk. That said, I would flee, fight, or both a society that did thusly, if I could.

Hitler is said to have been a Catholic, and I have read was supported, at least to a degree, by the Catholic authorities in Germany.

Homosexuality has been despised and regarded as shameful by every civilization since the dawn of human history. That should give you pause to wonder. But I doubt that it will.

You’re right, it doesn’t. I’m not one that automatically thinks just because something has always been one way means it should always continue.

Don’t delude yourself that at last homosexuals have found a welcome home in the good old U.S.A. When push comes to shove, there are too many heterosexuals to shove back. That is the case everywhere in the world.

Tis but a matter of time. You’re right, heterosexuals do now, and probably always will outnumber homosexuals. But many heterosexuals, like myself, have come to the conclusion that our lives, lifestyles, and livelihoods are not threatened by the existence of homosexuals, and therefore we have no right to tell them how to live. You don’t seem to agree.

Tyrant.

I have a bridge to sell you. Are you interested?

You accusing Adam of lying? While I have not myself ever been on the receiving end of anal sex, I know enough people who have (including my own beautiful loving bride) who have told me that done right, it’s enjoyable indeed, to have come to the conclusion that it really is. If you don’t want to do it, that’s fine, don’t. But don’t think you possess the authority to tell others they can’t.

 

[cascherman]

You accusing Adam of lying? While I have not myself ever been on the receiving end of anal sex, I know enough people who have (including my own beautiful loving bride) who have told me that done right, it’s enjoyable indeed, to have come to the conclusion that it really is. If you don’t want to do it, that’s fine, don’t. But don’t think you possess the authority to tell others they can’t.

I don’t know anyone here telling others they cannot have anal sex if they like. My point here is that natural law doesn’t support it, and when natural law doesn’t support something you find things start going wrong quick when you insist upon contradicting it. You can’t contradict natural law for long and too much; physical, mental, and emotional damage will occur.

Actually, I have a theory that the prevalence of homosexuality has brought down many civilizations. If you are interested in hearing more about this maybe we can do some PM’ing, I do not want to hijack the thread.

 

[Seeker2010]

So, again, we are talking about natural here. You were not given the facilities to have homosexual sex naturally without risking a bladder infection unless you install some sort of manufactured covering, right?

You were not given the facilities to fly through the sky naturally without risking death unless you install some sort of manufactured vehicle. You gonna argue Jetblue is immoral? After all, death is a whole lot more serious than a bladder infection, which is completely curable with a dose of antibiotics.

But wait, antibiotics are themselves artificially manufactured products, so perhaps they’re against natural law, too?

This has nothing to do with desire, albeit I do not desire homosexual sex, but I also do not desire mooshoo pork but that does not cause me to call Chinese food immoral.

Never had mooshoo pork so can’t say whether or not I like it, nonetheless, you ARE arguing that your lack of desire to engage in anal sex should be enough reason to cause those who have a desire to do so to ignore those desires and deny themselves.

It is unnatural to fly, but there has been no sociological study or research indicating that skydiving causes any long lasting mental and emotional damage. If there were, I may be telling you that skydiving is immoral.

To the extent that homosexuality causes any long lasting mental or emotional damage (and that’s assuming facts very much not in evidence), I maintain it’s caused by people like you who spend your time preaching to homosexuals how bad they are and how they should live their lives according to your moral code. Mind yer own business.

 

[cascherman]

You were not given the facilities to fly through the sky naturally without risking death unless you install some sort of manufactured vehicle. You gonna argue Jetblue is immoral? After all, death is a whole lot more serious than a bladder infection, which is completely curable with a dose of antibiotics.

But wait, antibiotics are themselves artificially manufactured products, so perhaps they’re against natural law, too?

Never had mooshoo pork so can’t say whether or not I like it, nonetheless, you ARE arguing that your lack of desire to engage in anal sex should be enough reason to cause those who have a desire to do so to ignore those desires and deny themselves.

To the extent that homosexuality causes any long lasting mental or emotional damage (and that’s assuming facts very much not in evidence), I maintain it’s caused by people like you who spend your time preaching to homosexuals how bad they are and how they should live their lives according to your moral code. Mind yer own business.

Let me cool our jets for a second. I’m here for a conversation, I know you may have had some nasty people responding to you but I’m not going to be nasty and I expect the same from you. You are posting on a thread called “Gay marriage: who cares?” so one would expect to discuss the topic at hand.

Can we continue? Good… I’ll start, if you don’t want to respond then don’t.

Anyhow, getting back to natural law. I stated that skydiving is not immoral even though it is unnatural for humans to do it. But, not unnatural for birds! And no Jetblue is not immoral.

But one could argue that for something to be “natural” it would be okay for literally everyone to do it. For example, skydiving… everyone could skydive and life would go on. Yes, you would lose like .5% of the population or so to accidents but otherwise all is well, right?

However, with homosexuality life would not go on if** literally **everyone did it. Life would literally end in one generation. Thus… unnatural… and not okay, it creates scandal in our minds automatically except in cases like yours where you have reprogrammed yourself to accept it because it threatens our existence by its simple rise in popularity. Just like if murder was literally done by everyone, life would not go on… etc.

 

[Seeker2010]

Let me cool our jets for a second. I’m here for a conversation, I know you may have had some nasty people responding to you but I’m not going to be nasty and I expect the same from you.

Well, I didn’t think I was being nasty, but I am very, very fatigued, so if I was, pleas accept my apologies. While I am strongly opposed to religiously based government, I have no desire to be a jerkwad about it.

Anyhow, getting back to natural law. I stated that skydiving is not immoral even though it is unnatural for humans to do it. But, not unnatural for birds! And no Jetblue is not immoral.

So are you saying that something that animals do naturally, but humans don’t, is therefore not against natural law? Be careful with that one, for it’s an indisputable fact that many animals behave in homosexual ways.

But one could argue that for something to be “natural” it would be okay for literally everyone to do it. For example, skydiving… everyone could skydive and life would go on. Yes, you would lose like .5% of the population or so to accidents but otherwise all is well, right?

Well, my understanding is that the risks are much less that 0.5% (for that would mean 1 of every 200 jumps would end in death, and were that the case, few would jump), but your argument doesn’t seem to work.

If everyone occasionally engaged in homosexual behavior, but not always (ala bisexuals) we wouldn’t die out, but your arguments vis-a-vis natural law would still call that bad. For that matter, if everyone occasionally partook in orgies, assuming they are not exclusively homosexual orgies, our species would continue, so based on that definition orgies are okay.

Don’t misunderstand me, I think orgies ARE ok, but I very seriously doubt most proponents of ‘natural law’ on this board would agree.

However, with homosexuality life would not go on if** literally **everyone did it.

Perhaps, but only if homosexual acts were the ONLY thing they participated in.